For instance, I love the Golden Age Wonder Woman but I have issues with her. It's hard finding a story without someone tied up. Also, I really like the way Darwyn Cooke handled her. She's more Amazon here. Taller, too.

There are some ugly people on the other forums. I still think DC is trying to cater to a market that is lazy. I was going through my EC comics last night and laughed out loud, literally, at how much text was on a cover of Weird Fantasy. A reader today would reject that because they don't want story and art, they want picture books.

tony ingram wrote:I hate the CBR forums. I just can't go there anymore.

CBR isn't as bad as another site. One that features a trolling individual who claims to be in his 40s/50s and takes his username from a very talented DC artist. He claims to be a wise sage with a vast knowledge of the Golden Age. I've read so many of his posts to know he's lying and he's a newbie trying to pass himself off as more experienced. He reminds me of a character I encountered at another site who posted fake references. The guy quoted from a nonexistent book.

But the one I had so much trouble with there contacted me on Facebook. I had to block him. He was interested in a hookup because we live in the same state. This was also when my avatar was my real face. Maybe he can hook up with Alan Scott, instead.

I think the problem with most forums/messageboards is that it's not a place to discuss and talk about things but an arena for one-upmanship. There are some people who can only express themselves behind a computer screen. And then, it's all about winning. And those of us who just want to talk are made out to be crybabies.

It boils down a lot of time to good moderation. That's hard to find. Some deal with an iron fist and some are too weak. I was disappointed with the DC whatever it is board. I thought it would be fair and balanced. It isn't.

The main problem with the DC board for me is the same as it was on the previous DC board: it's a fractured community, divided into two polarized factions, the fanatically pro-DCnU newbies who have basically just "discovered" something and are praising and defending it with near religious fervour, and the older, established fanbase who are in the main rather less happy, and in many cases actually very bitter about the whole thing. It's been like that since the beginning simply because most of the members migrated from the old DC board.

Oh, crap. It just gets better, doesn't it? Read on another forum that Sam might not be around for a while. Never a happy couple in a soap opera, is there? And James Robinson has already promised another gay character in Earth-2. Hmmm. Remember me saying I could believe jilted Jay Garrick being homosexual over Alan Scott (no pun intended there) but what if ... what if ... well, say our old pals ... are more than buddies. Ah, hell, the way DC treats us older fans with disrespect, why not?

Oh, right. Not having read it, this is not a character thatmade any impression on me. I presume a certain subsection of fandom is already up in arms at the speculative thought that a character they've barely seen might be killed off, then...?

If this gets vitriolic, I will drop it, but can I ask why you think it's disrespectful? I mean, one of the things many fans are upset about is that certain characters are redefined as gay, and those fans think that's disrespectful. I don't get it. Is it because he's different, or because he's gay?

If this gets vitriolic, I will drop it, but can I ask why you think it's disrespectful? I mean, one of the things many fans are upset about is that certain characters are redefined as gay, and those fans think that's disrespectful. I don't get it. Is it because he's different, or because he's gay?

Here's why it's disrespectful, at least to me:

1) It's nothing but a cynical stunt. They're not doing this in earnest, as any fool can see. They're just desperate to keep up with Marvel and Archie.

2) Alan Scott was obviously chosen because he's fairly well-known (or at least the name he originated is, which works well enough for the headlines that they did this for anyway; it's always "Green Lantern Gay!", not "Original and Less Popular Green Lantern You've Probably Never Heard Of Gay!") but at the same time is not a character Dan DiDio cares about. I guarantee, I guaran-FREAKING-tee that if James Robinson had said, "Hey, can Barry Allen be gay?" Dan wouldn't have even CONSIDERED it. It's indicative of Dan's contempt for the entire JSA, I guess is what I'm saying. Not because being gay is contemptuous, mind, but because the selection of Alan Scott is a clear indicator that, to Dan, HE JUST DOESN'T MATTER. "Change whatever you like, it's just Alan Scott!"

3) It feels very much like this was done in part to give the finger to JSA fans. I could be wrong, but I feel like he's using this as a sort of. . .I don't know, frat boy insult tactic against us ("Don't like the New 52, you old fogeys? Well, you're hero's GAY now, so there! Ha!") while at the same time trying to pass it off as some wonderfully progressive move to everyone else.

I'm not insulted, of course, but I am annoyed. I firmly believe that it's just NOT a good fit for Alan, and it negates the existence of Jade and Obsidian, who I love. And worst of all, they can never change him BACK now, can they? Imagine how that would go over. Thus, Jade and Obsidian are effectively gone forever, and. . .for what? For the sake of impressing people who don't really CARE anyway?

What he said. I knowI sound paranoid, but I really believe that the current powers-that-be have no regard for the Golden Age characters and even less for their fans, and are actively trying to irritate us. Not that that's the only reason for Alan's transformation (which is basically a marketing stunt) but I'm sure they know they're pissing off a certain section of fandom, and which section, and are amused by it.

If this gets vitriolic, I will drop it, but can I ask why you think it's disrespectful? I mean, one of the things many fans are upset about is that certain characters are redefined as gay, and those fans think that's disrespectful. I don't get it. Is it because he's different, or because he's gay?

Here's why it's disrespectful, at least to me:

1) It's nothing but a cynical stunt. They're not doing this in earnest, as any fool can see. They're just desperate to keep up with Marvel and Archie.

2) Alan Scott was obviously chosen because he's fairly well-known (or at least the name he originated is, which works well enough for the headlines that they did this for anyway; it's always "Green Lantern Gay!", not "Original and Less Popular Green Lantern You've Probably Never Heard Of Gay!") but at the same time is not a character Dan DiDio cares about. I guarantee, I guaran-FREAKING-tee that if James Robinson had said, "Hey, can Barry Allen be gay?" Dan wouldn't have even CONSIDERED it. It's indicative of Dan's contempt for the entire JSA, I guess is what I'm saying. Not because being gay is contemptuous, mind, but because the selection of Alan Scott is a clear indicator that, to Dan, HE JUST DOESN'T MATTER. "Change whatever you like, it's just Alan Scott!"

3) It feels very much like this was done in part to give the finger to JSA fans. I could be wrong, but I feel like he's using this as a sort of. . .I don't know, frat boy insult tactic against us ("Don't like the New 52, you old fogeys? Well, you're hero's GAY now, so there! Ha!") while at the same time trying to pass it off as some wonderfully progressive move to everyone else.

I'm not insulted, of course, but I am annoyed. I firmly believe that it's just NOT a good fit for Alan, and it negates the existence of Jade and Obsidian, who I love. And worst of all, they can never change him BACK now, can they? Imagine how that would go over. Thus, Jade and Obsidian are effectively gone forever, and. . .for what? For the sake of impressing people who don't really CARE anyway?

Very well put.

I said before, I have no issues with diversity. I even have no issues with making a JSAer gay IF it were one of the members whose backstory is not so fully developed. Alan Scott was a ladies man and had several women in his life (Harlequin, Thorn, Irene Miller), never displayed any homosexual tendencies before, and had two children. Dr. Mid-Nite, on the other hand, had no significant other and his relationship with Myra Mason seemed more professional, even platonic, than romantic.

DC is trying to make sales. DC is not interested in its gay readers. Retconning a character is not progress despite how much it is being heralded as so; it's a sales gimmick. True progress would have been the creation of a new character who is gay from the beginning. This is like Lois Lane suddenly becoming a lesbian.

Thought I'd repost what one poster at another site reported on the second issue of Earth-2. I'll make comments after Tony and after I get back from the gym.

"Michael Holt arrives on Earth 2 and is immediately confronted by Terry Sloane, who has a very villainous edge to him. He claims to be the Smartest Man in the World(not 3rd) and kicks Holt's ass using spores that grant him control of his T-spheres.

Meanwhile, Jay Garrick is chosen to be the first super hero in the new "Age of Wonders". Mercury is the last God, and while dying, passes his powers into Jay who immediately looks really stupid. I understand the new costume at all, but that's literally a salad bowl on his head with a window in front. Scratch the helmet.

Alan is off being gay with his boyfriend in some really forced romance scenes(from the preview we've seen).

We cut back to Jay Garrick who reveals that his hobby is parkour running. This means that as a Flash, he flips around and does tricks like Spider-Man. I think everyone already thought of this but DC. Glad they finally caught up. Jay ends up beating up a bunch of rats that are possessed by Darkseid "Apokorats" he calls them.

Jay then busts up some thugs in an alley and saves a couple who names him off-panel. Story reveals that the world exists under one government, which united all world governments to rival Apokolips. There is literally a big brother type world police who start chasing Jay.

Jay decides to see how fast he can really run and ends up rocketing to Poland, where he's immediately confronted by the new Hawkgirl, an officer of the World Police.

Meanwhile, Alan continues his forced gay romance on a fast-rail train in China. Just as he's about to pop the question to Sam, the train explodes, taking the bridge out with it."

Rather than make a bunch of different posts, I've combined my responses.

>Have you been following my posts? I think I clearly stated things above >(or maybe a page back)..

Partly it wasn't clear, in that you were talking about disrespect when you mentioned the possibility that they were gay, but more it was a more general question based on other people, many not even on the list. It was more of a spark from you than that it was it all directed to you.

>1) It's nothing but a cynical stunt. They're not doing this in earnest, as >any fool can see. They're just desperate to keep up with Marvel and >Archie.

I have a problem with this, in that it's what people say every time a character is changed. DC has been committed to diversity for a while now, it's one of the things some people don't like about them, at least many long time fans. Don't get me wrong, I think they botched their chances at diversity with the new 52, but it seems to me that THAT was cynical, because they knew that many fans are unwilling to spend money on truly different characters and so they hedged their bets. I think they want to bring in new readers, and of course that's a money making thing, too, but they hold back because so many older readers reject that change. I don't think adding in different versions of characters is cynical.

>2) Alan Scott was obviously chosen because he's fairly well-known

The problem here is that this is not true, mostly. Scott is well-known to SOME people and I won't even say that is true of the larger comics community. Those of us who've been reading for a while know him, and so do fans of DC's Golden Age and the JSA, but that's largely it. He really is a relatively minor characer in terms of who knows who he is.

>it's always "Green Lantern Gay!", not "Original and Less Popular Green >Lantern You've Probably Never Heard Of Gay!"

That MAY be a PR move on DC's part, but it's just as likely to be that the news writers only know anything about him that way. They know he's GL, and that's it. Or they expect their readers to get it that way.

>It's indicative of Dan's contempt for the entire JSA, I guess is what I'm >saying. Not because being gay is contemptuous, mind,

That's my biggest issue, for MANY people that seems to very much be the case. That simply making him gay is a bad thing. He is NOT the same character as before, so what does it matter? Just as "my" Superman (Bronze Age) is dead no matter how much the new one might resemble him, the old Alan Scott is gone. I lived with the Byrne version, and it wouldn't have bothered me a bit to have had him be gay.

>but because the selection of Alan Scott is a clear indicator that, to Dan, HE >JUST DOESN'T MATTER. "Change whatever you like, it's just Alan Scott!"

I find it hard to reconcile this with the idea that he's being showcased in the news.

>It feels very much like this was done in part to give the finger to JSA fans.

I can't argue with this, because of my own issues with the death of Kal-L, but any time there's a change people claim it's a deliberate insult. It may just be that they're more worried about money, and want to appeal to people willing to spend, it doesn't have to be aimed at someone. Any individual writer I can see being angry/dumb enough to flip the bird at fans (I still wonder about Johns and IC) but an entire company? Doesn't make sense.

>For the sake of impressing people who don't really CARE anyway?.

It seems to me to be more about getting new sales.

>but I really believe that the current powers-that-be have no regard for >the Golden Age characters and even less for their fans,

I don't disagree. I just don't see this as being related to the decision to change Alan.

>Not that that's the only reason for Alan's transformation (which is basically >a marketing stunt) but I'm sure they know they're pissing off a certain >section of fandom, and which section, and are amused by it..

Again, given my reaction to Kal-L's death I can't really argue, but I just don't see this. It's almost like the old line that people used to give about Heavy Metal groups encoding suicide inducements into their records. Seems a bit odd to want to lose customers.

>I even have no issues with making a JSAer gay IF it were one of the >members whose backstory is not so fully developed. Alan Scott was a >ladies man

Was. That's the big point. DC has been saying repeatedly saying that these are "new" characters. Using the same names, sure, as a way to not lose too many sales, but they're not the same people. That's pretty clear all around.

> DC is trying to make sales. DC is not interested in its gay readers.

I don't see this as any more true than that they're deliberately angering old readers. Yes, they changed, but their sales were declining. Yes, they're trying to make sales, but they "care" about gay readers in the same way they care about any other readers, as sales. But, that's their business. I won't buy from them because I don't agree with the way they do some things, but I don't see any of this as about anything more than money. The same way almost any decisions they make are about money. But, the interesting thing to me here is that this could easily be seen as an issue of art, that they want their stories to reflect the real world more (in some ways) and that they want to open up their storytelling. It's hard to go along with the idea that artistic integrity is a good thing, but only so long as it gives me what I want.

>Retconning a character is not progress despite how much it is being >heralded as so; it's a sales gimmick.

I just can't agree. Change is change, it's always been done. We either like it or we don't, but that doesn't support sinister motives. It may be a gimmick, but gimmicks sometimes give good stories. I like Hal Jordan, but I also liked Kyle Rayner, despite my feeling (note I said feeling) that making Hal go mad was a gimmick. If this IS a gimmick, it could still give good stories.

>True progress would have been the creation of a new character who is >gay from the beginning.

THIS Alan Scott is a new character. As new as the fans will accept, anyway. Fans, by and large, don't accept new characters at all, so of course the publishers change the ones they already have. That is the nature of the business. They're not going to try to sell something they know people won't buy, but they might think changing someone like this might still sell. I don't know.

Mbast1 wrote:>1) It's nothing but a cynical stunt. They're not doing this in earnest, as >any fool can see. They're just desperate to keep up with Marvel and >Archie.

I have a problem with this, in that it's what people say every time a character is changed. DC has been committed to diversity for a while now, it's one of the things some people don't like about them, at least many long time fans. Don't get me wrong, I think they botched their chances at diversity with the new 52, but it seems to me that THAT was cynical, because they knew that many fans are unwilling to spend money on truly different characters and so they hedged their bets. I think they want to bring in new readers, and of course that's a money making thing, too, but they hold back because so many older readers reject that change. I don't think adding in different versions of characters is cynical.

Not always, but in this case it definitely was. They're simply jumping on a bandwagon. James Robinson probably isn't, of course, as he's been on this bandwagon since before it was one, but DC surely only approved this for the publicity and not for the sake of diversity. I really don't even think that's debatable, but maybe I'm just so jaded by them that I can't bear to think they actually have a heart.

The problem here is that this is not true, mostly. Scott is well-known to SOME people and I won't even say that is true of the larger comics community. Those of us who've been reading for a while know him, and so do fans of DC's Golden Age and the JSA, but that's largely it. He really is a relatively minor characer in terms of who knows who he is.

That's why I immediately added the caveat that his superheroic CODENAME, at least, is well-known. Not only that, but that wasn't even my point, my point was that he (or, at least, the name "Green Lantern") was well-known ENOUGH to count as a "major" character, but the Alan Scott iteration of that name WASN'T well-known enough for this to really rankle anyone but a small group of fans. If Dan was really about "diversity" he would've made an ACTUAL major character gay. He didn't. Thus, my point.

Mbast1 wrote:>it's always "Green Lantern Gay!", not "Original and Less Popular Green >Lantern You've Probably Never Heard Of Gay!"

That MAY be a PR move on DC's part, but it's just as likely to be that the news writers only know anything about him that way. They know he's GL, and that's it. Or they expect their readers to get it that way.

I agree.

Mbast1 wrote:>It's indicative of Dan's contempt for the entire JSA, I guess is what I'm >saying. Not because being gay is contemptuous, mind,

That's my biggest issue, for MANY people that seems to very much be the case. That simply making him gay is a bad thing. He is NOT the same character as before, so what does it matter? Just as "my" Superman (Bronze Age) is dead no matter how much the new one might resemble him, the old Alan Scott is gone. I lived with the Byrne version, and it wouldn't have bothered me a bit to have had him be gay.

It's not all about Alan, though. He was dead pre-New 52, after all, and I'd come to peace with that. But Jade and Obsidian weren't. Now they effectively are. Two characters are eliminated for the sake of one. That's MY biggest issue. And Obsidian was gay, of course, so with his elimination DC is now EXACTLY as diverse as they were before, not moreso, except NOW it can make headlines.

You see why I think this stunt is so cynical, my friend?

Mbast1 wrote:>but because the selection of Alan Scott is a clear indicator that, to Dan, HE >JUST DOESN'T MATTER. "Change whatever you like, it's just Alan Scott!"

I find it hard to reconcile this with the idea that he's being showcased in the news.

. . .I don't see why. Dan wanted the news, but not enough to affect one of "his" characters. That was my point, and I think it stands.

Mbast1 wrote:>It feels very much like this was done in part to give the finger to JSA fans.

I can't argue with this, because of my own issues with the death of Kal-L, but any time there's a change people claim it's a deliberate insult. It may just be that they're more worried about money, and want to appeal to people willing to spend, it doesn't have to be aimed at someone. Any individual writer I can see being angry/dumb enough to flip the bird at fans (I still wonder about Johns and IC) but an entire company? Doesn't make sense.

Dan DiDio had Herald from the DCMB beaten bloody in an Outsiders comic for criticizing him. Surely you're giving him too much credit. . .?

Mbast1 wrote:>For the sake of impressing people who don't really CARE anyway?.

It seems to me to be more about getting new sales.

I'm not talking about what they want, I'm talking about what will actually happen. It's not like every GLAAD member is going to start buying Earth 2. Rather, they'll just smile and nod at the news and move on with their lives. And for that, we have lost Jade and Obsidian

>Not always, but in this case it definitely was. They're simply jumping on a bandwagon.

You can't know that. It may seem that way, but there are Marvel fans convinced that COIE was DC jumping on the bandwagon for Secret Wars, and there are Star Trek fans convinced that Babylon 5 was a rip off of Deep Space Nine. Sometimes there IS a bandwagon effect going on (which isn't always a bad thing) and sometimes it is just the right time for many people to come to an idea. We can't know which one this is. Especially given that this has been going on for a while.

>but DC surely only approved this for the publicity and not for the sake of diversity.

You simply can't know that. DC has been working towards more diversity for a while. Their "first wave" of 52 titles were slammed for not being diverse enough, and this could easily be a response to that. They want to bring in new readers. The first wave didn't go as well as planned, they're trying even more new things. That's what I see.

> that I can't bear to think they actually have a heart.

I don't think it has anything to do with heart, it IS a business decision. But that's to be expected. But, I don't much care about the why.

> If Dan was really about "diversity" he would've made an ACTUAL major character gay. He didn't. Thus, my point.

And I think you're wrong. Fans simply would NOT accept a really major character being gay, that's something I'm pretty sure of based on years of interacting with them. I think they did what they could, where fans (in their estimation) would accept it. I think they are committed to diversity, but I also see it being based on bringing in new readers. They're not willing to risk losing major numbers of current readers, so I doubt they'll change a really major character, but I think that's as much on the fans as DC. They exist to make money, so we can't be surprised when that seems to be their motive. But, I don't much care about motives, since we can't know, I care about actions. What they're doing is a good thing, to me. Open up their fictional world to more viewpoints. They're already made it clear these aren't (for the most part) the same characters. We get what we get.

> But Jade and Obsidian weren't. Now they effectively are. Two characters are eliminated for the sake of one. That's MY biggest issue.

Who says DC was ever going to use them again? Again, we can't think of what has some before as having any bearing on these works. Part of the reason it was so easy for me to let go of the DC "New 52" is that clearly these are not the characters I was reading. They're explicitly not meant to be.

>And Obsidian was gay, of course, so with his elimination DC is now EXACTLY as diverse as they were before, not moreso,

But Obsidian wasn't even IN this new universe, and there's no reason to think he ever would have been. Now this new universe has one more character who isn't a SWM, and I think that's a positive step.

> You see why I think this stunt is so cynical, my friend?

No, I truly don't. I think you are making so many assumptions about how things would have been and why people are doing what they're doing that I can follow how you get to that point, but if you don't make those assumptions, it doesn't follow.

> I don't see why. Dan wanted the news, but not enough to affect one of "his" characters. That was my point, and I think it stands.

So he makes business decisions based on his own preferences? And WB allows him to run DC? I think this is a bit much to accept.

>Dan DiDio had Herald from the DCMB beaten bloody in an Outsiders comic for criticizing him. Surely you're giving him too much credit. . .?

Surely you're giving him too little. Adding this into a story WAS childish, I agree. But, he is running a very large business, the idea that he would be allowed to do that if he wasn't making good business decisions is not something that makes sense. You don't have to like him, I just don't see that imputiung sinister motives for decisions you don't like is a good thing. We're all prone to it, I know I can be, but others ought to remind of when we're being unreasonable. Gently, since (here at least) we ought to assume we like each other, but it's still important.

>I'm not talking about what they want, I'm talking about what will actually happen.

You don't know that.

> It's not like every GLAAD member is going to start buying Earth 2. Rather, they'll just smile and nod at the news and move on with their lives.

What about gay comics fans who don't already buy DC, but who now do/might? I was in my LCS yesterday and talked to the owner about this for a while (that poor guy puts up with a LOT...) and he said a number of his gay customers were talking about this, and they liked the move. They bought the book. THAT is what DC wants, I would argue. And may get. Can't know, but this is a good sign. People who won't read comics anyway aren't the target audience.

> And for that, we have lost Jade and Obsidian

Again, they might never have happened anyway.

After Zero Hour, "my" Legion of Superheroes was gone. I tried reading the post-ZH version, and didn't like it, it wasn't "mine", so I stopped reading and buying. That's all we can do. Just because we buy the books doesn't mean we own them. Even having supported the company doesn't entitle us to be given what we want. Sure, DC (and others) count on a sense of loyalty, and sometimes it backfires. But, DC will do what sells, and we can either buy it or not. I won't buy it because I don't like how they treat their creators. I don't have to assume they have crappy motives (even when it really seems as though that's what's going on...) I just judge what they do. If we miss old characters, we can put up websites, or write fan fiction. We can't make DC keep publishing work that isn't selling well. If that were so, MANY of us would never have gotten what we liked. If the Golden Age fans had gotten DC to keep publishing that version of Superman, I'd never have gotten the one I loved most. If mine had continued on, Byrne fans or others wouldn't have gotten what they loved. It happens. We can re-read what we loved (I fully intend to own every appearance of the Bronze Age Superman), and we can talk about it, blog about it, do fanfic about it. We can't make it never change.

You know. . .you're right, Mbast1. I am making a lot of assumptions. I think they're correct ones, though. I don't KNOW it, of course, you're certainly right about that, but I sure do believe it. Maybe that's a bit unreasonable, but I'm mad, man. There's no room for reason when you're mad.

In the meantime, just think of my rants as a series of wild guesses and not as facts you need to refute. That's. . .pretty much what they are, anyway. I do that a lot.

Mbast1 wrote:So he makes business decisions based on his own preferences? And WB allows him to run DC? I think this is a bit much to accept.

He is on record as doing this for Barry Allen. And by "on record" I mean he flat-out admitted it in the back of every comic that DC put out in a certain month. I still can't believe I really read that. The audacity of it was mind-boggling. And of course there's Hal Jordan, although I'm not sure if he admitted to that one or not. . . .

Sam_Vimes wrote:In the meantime, just think of my rants as a series of wild guesses and not as facts you need to refute. That's. . .pretty much what they are, anyway. I do that a lot.

We all do. I just don't want things to devolve into the mess the DC boards were, where so many people were the steroetypical fan, entitled and hating everything. I actually like all of you...Plus, I do worry about how much hate there is just because the character is now gay. I mean, people (and I don't mean you in particular) always call it a "gimmick" when a character is reimagined as gay, non-white, a woman, but it's never a gimmick when they're SWM. If by gimmick you mean a way to get attention or more sales, why isn't it a gimmick when they're SWM? Why is that the default position? That actually bugs me. I don't see that here, TBH, but I wonder about more generally.

Sam_Vimes wrote:He is on record as doing this for Barry Allen. And by "on record" I mean he flat-out admitted it in the back of every comic that DC put out in a certain month. I still can't believe I really read that. The audacity of it was mind-boggling. And of course there's Hal Jordan, although I'm not sure if he admitted to that one or not. . . .

He's said, from what I've seen, that those are the "iconic" versions. He could be wrong, in that he could be conflating his personal opinion with what IS iconic, but I just don't see a lot of business decisions being made just because he wants x and not y. I think WB is too fixed on the bottom line. If he were always right, in that his personal opinions matched what the market was willing to buy, maybe he could get away with it, but that doesn't seem to be the case. So, I think he may do that sometimes, but I've seen every decision he's made attributed to that by fans. I just can't buy that.

Sam_Vimes wrote:In the meantime, just think of my rants as a series of wild guesses and not as facts you need to refute. That's. . .pretty much what they are, anyway. I do that a lot.

We all do. I just don't want things to devolve into the mess the DC boards were, where so many people were the steroetypical fan, entitled and hating everything. I actually like all of you...Plus, I do worry about how much hate there is just because the character is now gay. I mean, people (and I don't mean you in particular) always call it a "gimmick" when a character is reimagined as gay, non-white, a woman, but it's never a gimmick when they're SWM. If by gimmick you mean a way to get attention or more sales, why isn't it a gimmick when they're SWM? Why is that the default position? That actually bugs me. I don't see that here, TBH, but I wonder about more generally.

My objection is not to characters being gay-it's to straight characters being made gay, or indeed gay characters being made straight, white characters being made black, whatever; basically, I object to established characters being changed significantly for no reason. I do not object to Northstar being gay because his creator always intended that he should be. I do object to Alan Scott suddenly being a gay man in his twenties with no kids, because Alan Scott, to me, is a twice married World War Two veteran with two adult offspring.

tony ingram wrote:because Alan Scott, to me, is a twice married World War Two veteran with two adult offspring.

But, he's not. This version is not, and never was. These are fictional character, we don't own them, and therefore we have no control over them. We can like them at any particular stage but we can't make them stay that way. Again, there are plenty of characters I like who would have never existed if they were always just as they were created. I can always go back and re-read "my" version, let others have theirs.

tony ingram wrote:I object to established characters being changed significantly for no reason.

But being changed in order to attract new readers because there aren't enough buying it now IS a reason.

And, of course he wasn't created gay, at that time, that wasn't an option. Neither was a major character being black (or not many), or non-christian, etc. Given that fans don't really buy "new" characters, what choice does a publisher have? If they want to sell books, they have to sell them to both established fans, and new ones. Sure, it would be great if new characters with diverse characteristics were bought by enough people to support them, but they're not. So they take established characters, relaunch them with new attributes, and hope that enough older fans AND new ones will buy it.

I think we really need to get past the idea that SWM is the default in comics. Otherwise, that industry will continue to die off, as older fans stop buying, and no newer ones come in.

I'd rather have many different people writing and drawing, and have some of what's published reflect what I want (with plenty of other things reflecting what others want) than insist it all be aimed at me and watch the industry die. Because I don't think anyone is ready to take DC's place yet. Given my own feelings towards DC's treatment of creators, I want this to eventually happen or for DC to "see the light", but if they go down I think the industry would take a massive hit and plenty of shops would likely close, leaving me no way to get what I do want.

First, I find that site to be embarrassing, it's an example of many of the problems with comics fans, from the sense of entitlement (calling it "misuse" when they're not done the way you want is at best silly) to the social conservative sense that being gay is bad, and that wanting to diversify the cast makes you a leftist (I read some of the other articles) to the complaint about "needless" political overtones (meaning the character has opinions the writer doesn't want to hear, from what I read) it's just the worst stereotyping of comics I've seen in a while.

Second, and more importantly, as to Mr. Thomas's opinion, it doesn't change anything. I admire his work and respect his position on things. I can even understand his bitterness at DC. But that doesn't make him right. I mean, calling the new Earth 2 an abomination? Way out of proportion. That he is upset that DC doesn't seem to be moving back to bringing in Obsidian and Jade is understandable. But, it doesn't make him right. I do note that he says this: "and is no more valid re the original Green Lantern created by Mart Nodell and Bill Finger than was the retroactive continuity we did back in the '80s." but that doesn't get the bold lettering the blogger used to try to bolster his point. Mr. Thomas's work is great, but that no more makes his opinion the "right" one than anything else. (The blogger himself refers to it as victimization making the character gay. What an ass)